The disappearing island

I am leaving work now but I'll answer in full later. I am delighted to find another flatist that doesn't believe in a conspiracy! You should look into my Relativistic Model.

Quote

The explanation I prefer is that they are simply mistaken because they are missing part of the puzzle.

I've been saying this for a decade, give or take.

Care to show where you define your "Relativistic Model"?
And please show either or both of experimental or theoretical evidence for the said model.

Quote from: John Davis on May 17, 2019, 01:16:27 PM

I am leaving work now but I'll answer in full later. I am delighted to find another flatist that doesn't believe in a conspiracy! You should look into my Relativistic Model.

Quote

The explanation I prefer is that they are simply mistaken because they are missing part of the puzzle.

I've been saying this for a decade, give or take.

Care to show where you define your "Relativistic Model"?
And please show either or both of experimental or theoretical evidence for the said model.

I, too, would like to know more about the Relativistic Model, especially since you (John) don't believe there's a conspiracy. With or without evidence, though of course evidence is always interesting.

magellanclavichord,
did I understand it correct that you believe that what science is telling is commonly true and that NASA send men to the moon, however, on the same time you believe earth is flat? That's interesting. So... what do you think about the photographs from the moon showing the earth? Please don't get me wrong, I like your attitude and your explanations of gravity.

The Earth photographs are flat, just as the Earth is. I see no problem with them. They are very pretty. We are very fortunate to live on such a nice Earth. I wish we were not working quite so hard to make it uninhabitable. I do expect it to outlast me because I'm an old man, but it's sad that future generations are going to have to deal with the climate change we are causing by burning up all the coal and oil just as fast as we possible can. Future generations will curse us for our greed and profligacy.

But I'm not sure why anyone would regard a two-dimensional photograph as proof that the Earth is a ball.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2019, 04:37:30 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 17, 2019, 01:16:27 PM

I am leaving work now but I'll answer in full later. I am delighted to find another flatist that doesn't believe in a conspiracy! You should look into my Relativistic Model.

Quote

The explanation I prefer is that they are simply mistaken because they are missing part of the puzzle.

I've been saying this for a decade, give or take.

Care to show where you define your "Relativistic Model"?
And please show either or both of experimental or theoretical evidence for the said model.

I, too, would like to know more about the Relativistic Model, especially since you (John) don't believe there's a conspiracy. With or without evidence, though of course evidence is always interesting.

Try EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis.

But, of course, "EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY" does not "PROVE THE EARTH IS FLAT".
And in fact, according to Einstein's General Relativity, any bending of spacetime in the vicinity of Earth is extremely small.
The bending of the spacelike component, loosely called space is immeasurably small near earth.
The bending of the timelike component, loosely called time is just as small but is measurable simply because time can be measured with such a high resolution.

So this Relativistic Model should be called John Davis's RELATIVITY hypothesis tries to  "PROVE"  that "THE EARTH IS FLAT".

In my opinion, without experimental or theoretical backing is nothing more that a "thought experiment" dreamt up by John Davis to (presumably?) show how a flat earth can look and measure like a Globe.

And I have asked for this "experimental or theoretical backing" numerous times but I've seen nothing - maybe that's my fault .

Try EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis.

Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I'm not sure I entirely follow the logic, but I approve of the concept that globism is not a conspiracy, but merely a misinterpretation of the evidence. The vast majority of people are well-intentioned, making a conspiracy of such magnitude far-fetched indeed.

In short , there is absolutely no evidence that the earth is flat but every evidence that the earth is a globe.

In short , there is absolutely no evidence that the earth is flat ...

Except for what we see with our eyes. 

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 18, 2019, 12:47:26 PM

In short , there is absolutely no evidence that the earth is flat ...

Except for what we see with our eyes. 

Which is more easily explained by the fact that the Earth is very much bigger than people are.   

...
But I'm not sure why anyone would regard a two-dimensional photograph as proof that the Earth is a ball.

Because it looks like a ball being hit by sunlight from one side:


Also, if you look for other images, if it would not be a ball, where are the other continents?

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2019, 05:57:28 PM

Try EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis.

Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I'm not sure I entirely follow the logic, but I approve of the concept that globism is not a conspiracy, but merely a misinterpretation of the evidence. The vast majority of people are well-intentioned, making a conspiracy of such magnitude far-fetched indeed.

I have a number of problems with this:

1) How can someone who constantly complains that physicists don’t know what gravity is so confidently appeal to general relativity for proof, when gravity is fundamental to the theory?

2) John makes the link between orbits following a path through curved space time with the proposal that the earth if flat and only appears curved due to same effect.  But the path of an object near the earth is entirely dependent on relative velocity.  At zero tangential velocity, there is no orbit, object falls straight down.  But the shape of the earth is independent to velocity.  It’s same for us on the surface as for satellites orbiting at high velocity.

Basically Einstein’s calculations on curved space time don’t predict the physical warping of a 3D object this way.  I’m afraid this is just misrepresentation of what general relativity actually says.

3) Compare the Earth to the Moon.  It’s possible to put objects in orbit around both, and we have done so.  According to General Relativity, the moon curves space time less than the earth. This is evident in actual missions (assuming you believe all that). 

Yet the moon is very much smaller than the earth. 

If the moon is flat and only curved by distortion in space time, it would need a stronger gravitational (or whatever) field to bend it into a smaller sphere.

If the flatness only relates to the earth, why do we have the exact same orbital mechanics for the moon, planets etc as for the earth?

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2019, 05:57:28 PM

Try EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis.

Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I'm not sure I entirely follow the logic, but I approve of the concept that globism is not a conspiracy, but merely a misinterpretation of the evidence. The vast majority of people are well-intentioned, making a conspiracy of such magnitude far-fetched indeed.

This is a better link as it has the images:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 18, 2019, 12:08:56 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2019, 05:57:28 PM

Try EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis.

Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I'm not sure I entirely follow the logic, but I approve of the concept that globism is not a conspiracy, but merely a misinterpretation of the evidence. The vast majority of people are well-intentioned, making a conspiracy of such magnitude far-fetched indeed.

I have a number of problems with this:

1) How can someone who constantly complains that physicists don’t know what gravity is so confidently appeal to general relativity for proof, when gravity is fundamental to the theory?

Gravity, actually, is not fundamental or part of the theory at all. Newton's laws are.

2) John makes the link between orbits following a path through curved space time with the proposal that the earth if flat and only appears curved due to same effect.  But the path of an object near the earth is entirely dependent on relative velocity.  At zero tangential velocity, there is no orbit, object falls straight down.  But the shape of the earth is independent to velocity.  It’s same for us on the surface as for satellites orbiting at high velocity.

Basically Einstein’s calculations on curved space time don’t predict the physical warping of a 3D object this way.  I’m afraid this is just misrepresentation of what general relativity actually says.

Actually, a ball thrown on the surface of earth also travels a straight line, if relativity is true. I have discussed this with experts in the field. While they didn't like my flat earth treatment, they agreed with my conclusions and methodology.

3) Compare the Earth to the Moon.  It’s possible to put objects in orbit around both, and we have done so.  According to General Relativity, the moon curves space time less than the earth. This is evident in actual missions (assuming you believe all that). 

Yet the moon is very much smaller than the earth. 

If the moon is flat and only curved by distortion in space time, it would need a stronger gravitational (or whatever) field to bend it into a smaller sphere.

If the flatness only relates to the earth, why do we have the exact same orbital mechanics for the moon, planets etc as for the earth?

Your argument also applies to a round earth / moon, does it not? And does it not fail for the same reasons there?

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 17, 2019, 04:56:08 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2019, 04:37:30 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 17, 2019, 01:16:27 PM

I am leaving work now but I'll answer in full later. I am delighted to find another flatist that doesn't believe in a conspiracy! You should look into my Relativistic Model.

Quote

The explanation I prefer is that they are simply mistaken because they are missing part of the puzzle.

I've been saying this for a decade, give or take.

Care to show where you define your "Relativistic Model"?
And please show either or both of experimental or theoretical evidence for the said model.

I, too, would like to know more about the Relativistic Model, especially since you (John) don't believe there's a conspiracy. With or without evidence, though of course evidence is always interesting.

Try EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis.

But, of course, "EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY" does not "PROVE THE EARTH IS FLAT".
And in fact, according to Einstein's General Relativity, any bending of spacetime in the vicinity of Earth is extremely small.
The bending of the spacelike component, loosely called space is immeasurably small near earth.
The bending of the timelike component, loosely called time is just as small but is measurable simply because time can be measured with such a high resolution.

So this Relativistic Model should be called John Davis's RELATIVITY hypothesis tries to  "PROVE"  that "THE EARTH IS FLAT".

In my opinion, without experimental or theoretical backing is nothing more that a "thought experiment" dreamt up by John Davis to (presumably?) show how a flat earth can look and measure like a Globe.

And I have asked for this "experimental or theoretical backing" numerous times but I've seen nothing - maybe that's my fault .

All experimental backing that supports relativity supports this. What kind of theoretical backing would you like? Are Newton's laws not enough? I'm happy to oblige with reasonable and aimed questions.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 18, 2019, 12:08:56 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2019, 05:57:28 PM

Try EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis.

Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I'm not sure I entirely follow the logic, but I approve of the concept that globism is not a conspiracy, but merely a misinterpretation of the evidence. The vast majority of people are well-intentioned, making a conspiracy of such magnitude far-fetched indeed.

This is a better link as it has the images:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

Thanks for the reference. It does make your hypothesis a little clearer. Here, I believe, is the crux your claim:

Relativity & The Flat Earth
The Ferrari Effect
Let us build first from the base of Newton.

Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit that it feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.) Remember, Einstein disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle. Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal with description of it. We should assume that it is indeed travelling in a straight line as its experimental evidence points us to. The issue is with our naive view of geometry and space. Likewise we take the view that it is indeed in motion and not still.

This is the part I have a serious issue with, "but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is)".
You fallaciously appeal to the authority of Einstein's General Relativity.
General Relativity explains gravitation as an inertial effect due to mass "curving spacetime" not simply "curving space".

In the vicinity of Earth the curving of spacetime is minute and its effect on "space" is to distort the size of the earth a few centimetres not drastically change the shape of the earth.
So it is not the type of curvature that can make a flat surface into a ball or vice versa.

The curving of "time" is likewise minute but any objects we are familiar with are (in the appropriate units) almost stationary in "space" and travel much faster in "time".

And it is predominantly the curvature of "time" (bending it towards massive objects) that cause what we call gravitation.
An small object allowed to follow its "geodesic in spacetime" (the equivalent of a "straight line in Euclidean geometry") appears to accelerate towards the massive object.

So even under Einstein's General Relativity satellites orbit in circular or near elliptical orbits in "space", almost as described by Newtonian Laws.

So, in my opinion, your claims in "Relativity & The Flat Earth" cannot rely on support from Einstein's General Relativity in any shape of form.

In other words, your "Relativity & The Flat Earth" is nothing more than a hypothesis without supporting evidence or even any theoretical basis.

I note that you claim:

All experimental backing that supports relativity supports this. . . . . Are Newton's laws not enough? I'm happy to oblige with reasonable and aimed questions.

That is precisely what I disagree with: Einstein's General Relativity does not support your claims in the slightest.

Sure, Newton's Laws, including his Law of Universal Gravitation, are also quite adequate but virtually all Flat Earthers refuse to accept them.

First, sorry for not replying sooner.  Actually forgot I made this post.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 19, 2019, 01:24:52 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 18, 2019, 12:08:56 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2019, 05:57:28 PM

Try EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis.

Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I'm not sure I entirely follow the logic, but I approve of the concept that globism is not a conspiracy, but merely a misinterpretation of the evidence. The vast majority of people are well-intentioned, making a conspiracy of such magnitude far-fetched indeed.

I have a number of problems with this:

1) How can someone who constantly complains that physicists don’t know what gravity is so confidently appeal to general relativity for proof, when gravity is fundamental to the theory?

Gravity, actually, is not fundamental or part of the theory at all. Newton's laws are.

What?  Are you confusing with special relativity?

From wiki:

General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and supersedes Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.

...etc, etc. 

It’s all about gravity.

Quote

2) John makes the link between orbits following a path through curved space time with the proposal that the earth if flat and only appears curved due to same effect.  But the path of an object near the earth is entirely dependent on relative velocity.  At zero tangential velocity, there is no orbit, object falls straight down.  But the shape of the earth is independent to velocity.  It’s same for us on the surface as for satellites orbiting at high velocity.

Basically Einstein’s calculations on curved space time don’t predict the physical warping of a 3D object this way.  I’m afraid this is just misrepresentation of what general relativity actually says.

Actually, a ball thrown on the surface of earth also travels a straight line, if relativity is true. I have discussed this with experts in the field. While they didn't like my flat earth treatment, they agreed with my conclusions and methodology.

And as I said, the (apparent) curve of a thrown ball’s trajectory is a property of its velocity.  Yet the curve of the Earth is independent of velocity.  ie.  It’s not the same thing.

I don’t know what exactly you discussed with these experts, but I find it very hard to believe they agreed with your conclusions.

Quote

3) Compare the Earth to the Moon.  It’s possible to put objects in orbit around both, and we have done so.  According to General Relativity, the moon curves space time less than the earth. This is evident in actual missions (assuming you believe all that). 

Yet the moon is very much smaller than the earth. 

If the moon is flat and only curved by distortion in space time, it would need a stronger gravitational (or whatever) field to bend it into a smaller sphere.

If the flatness only relates to the earth, why do we have the exact same orbital mechanics for the moon, planets etc as for the earth?

Your argument also applies to a round earth / moon, does it not? And does it not fail for the same reasons there?

It applies to the ability to put an object in orbit around the moon, as well as the earth.

Unless you deny that we can put objects in orbit around the moon (although this appears to be an idea that avoids the whole space conspiracy thing, specifically citing satellites as evidence), I gave 2 options here to fit with your hypothesis.

Either the moon is flat and only appears round, the same way the Earth does, in which case the amount of spacetime curvature doesn’t work.

Or the Earth is flat and the moon is round, yet somehow the  equations work the same for both.

Maybe it would help if you explain how the moon/planets fit into your hypothesis.

1.  Can we put objects in orbit around the moon and other planets?  ie.  do regular orbital mechanics still work?  Or do you still rely on NASA snd other space agencies lying about everything?

2.  Are the moon and other planets really flat in the same way the Earth is flat, or are they somehow different?